BP Energy Outlook 2016
By Paul Homewood
http://www.slideshare.net/BP_plc/bp-energy-outlook-2016
BP published their latest Energy Outlook in February, and it does not appear to have been much reported.
Worth then taking a look at a few of the highlights:
It needs stressing that the assumptions are based on Paris Treaty commitments being followed through, and not on a Business As Usual case.
The key findings are that:
1) Primary energy consumption rises by a third.
2) Fossil fuels still account for 80% of total energy in 2035 (down from 86% in 2014).
3) Gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel, oil also continues to increase, but coal consumption declines as a share.
4) While renewables account for a third of the growth in power generation, they still will still only supply 9% of energy in 2035 (see below).
5) Emissions of CO2 continue to rise.
Growth in population and GDP will continue to drive energy consumption upwards, particularly in Asia.
As mentioned, demand for all fossil fuels will continue to increase in absolute terms, whilst renewables remain at a low level. Although the growth in coal falls sharply, actual consumption is still expected to increase.
And although the annual growth rate of CO2 emissions is expected to fall to 0.9%, they will still be 20% higher than now in 2035. (This is consistent with the declaration made in the Paris Treaty that, despite INDCs, GHG emissions would rise to 55Gt by 2030).
BP’s answer to this “problem” is a “meaningful” global price fir carbon! Or, put another way, make energy so expensive that nobody can afford to use it.
The full BP Outlook is here:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Why do they still say “fossil fuels?” Common sense and observation would suggest that the carbon cycle of earlier epochs would be very similar to the cycle of today. There would be no vast amounts of plants and animals that are not recycled by life itself, thus there would be no vast repositories for dead animals and plants to “compost” into vast pockets of carbon “litter.” And observation today would also suggest that there is no way 100s of feet of rock would magically form over the top of those repositories, as well. WHERE and HOW the carbon fuels developed certainly has nothing to do with decomposing carbon based life, and we will never determine that as long as we cling to the belief that coal is 100% decomposed animals and plants from millions of years ago. Again, what happens? Does some magical “ET” come along and lift 500 feet of rock and shovel the “waste” into an underground pocket and replace the rock layer while the compost converts to coal? Oddly enough, I never really gave much thought to the incongruities of “science,” always accepting the expert theories until “climate science” came along, and now I look at all science and see weird things that are “accepted” and have no logical way of actually happening – digging down into the Earth and “going back in time” being one of them. WHERE does all that new “earth” come from that we have to dig down through to see the past come from? And IF we are digging down to the past, does that mean the planet is growing that much? How else does it accumulate on top without gaining diameter? Are we to believe that mountain ranges in the past were thousands of feet taller than today so that we can bury the past under new layers of rock by erosion? Really?
When we burn fossil fuels, we return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere where it once resided. We are returning a tiny percentage, and when the atmosphere contained much more CO2 than today’s levels, no temperature tipping point was reached, no oceans turned acidic.
In some future edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a new chapter will be added about the irrational carbon dioxide phobia.
The whole world has gone mad. Even the lovely Leonardo has bought a, er, (beautiful?) new mansion next to the sea. Such is climate change it makes one slightly mad indeed.
http://www.lonny.com/Leonardo+DiCaprio's+Malibu+Beach+House