Skip to content

BP Energy Review 2018

June 14, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

You are no doubt aware that global emissions of carbon dioxide climbed again last year, up by 2% from the year before, according to the latest BP Energy Review.

Since 2010, emissions have grown by 9%:

image

 

  Increases in emissions in the US, China, India and the ROW have put reductions in Europe in the shade:

 

image

 

It is the usual story, with increased demand for energy, up 2.9% year-on-year driving emissions.

Growth in renewable capacity cannot even keep up with increased demand, never mind replace fossil fuels, which continue to grow.

 

image

 

 

As a result, renewable energy is still making a negligible contribution to energy demand:

 image 

 

 

Regionally, we can see how important fossil fuels still remain throughout the world:

 

image

 

 

And contrary to the misinformation often peddled by green activists, the UK is leading the way in deployment of wind and solar power.

image

 

 

Finally, it is worth taking a look at cobalt and lithium prices, that have been rocketing in the last couple of years:

 image

 image

32 Comments
  1. Colin Brooks permalink
    June 14, 2019 6:53 pm

    In early 2015 Dr Murray Salby lost his job at Macquarie University in Sydney because he refused to teach that CO2 caused dangerous warming. The data from his experiments/observations showed that the amount of atmospheric CO2 was in no way connected to human emissions, it continued to rise steadily despite our activities.This fact seems totally beyond the capacity of politicians, the IPCC and oh yeas: President Obama to understand.

    • Broadlands permalink
      June 15, 2019 7:57 pm

      Colin… If you would read a small paper published ~30 years ago “Carbon Dioxide and People” you will see that the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global population (the sum total of human activities), is almost perfect. CO2 rose because of our activities. That said, the capacity of our leaders to not understand that all attempts by humans to lower CO2 in the amounts needed will fail is also almost perfect. One ppm of CO2, by mass, is almost eight gigatonnes. Our CCS technology works with a few millions of tons a year. The time and costs are beyond comprehension for such a project. Whether this steady rise is “dangerous” is a separate issue.

      • Robert Knight permalink
        June 16, 2019 5:10 pm

        Every single time thunder sounds while I’m sleeping, I jerk awake with my heart pounding, and a bit short of breath. The obvious correation is that thunder causes ‘sleep apnia’. Right??

      • JimW permalink
        June 17, 2019 9:57 am

        Please explain what went wrong with this correlation almost exactly after the paper was produced?

      • Immune to propaganda permalink
        June 17, 2019 10:56 am

        Also, perhaps he could explain why CO2 levels were fourteen times higher than today’s in previous ICE ages and confirmed by Stockholm University in geological ice core surveys.

      • dennisambler permalink
        June 17, 2019 11:46 pm

        That is a paper of its time. It did not show that CO2 rose because of our activities, it correlated population rise with CO2 rise, a different concept. Correlation is not causation and in itself such a correlation is meaningless.

        They spoke of population having outstripped the ability of the earth to support the expanding population, this is Club of Rome stuff and reality shows how wrong they were. The authors were heavily influenced by Roger Revelle who started Al Gore on the road to CO2 riches.

        Since that paper, real world observations show that CO2 does not directly rise in response to anthropogenic emissions. There has been a monotonic rise in annual atmospheric CO2 unrelated to emissions. From 1959-1988, emissions globally rose by 143%, Mauna Loa measurements rose by 11%. From 1989-2017, emissions rose by 62%. M. Loa CO2 rose by 15%, largely influenced by spikes in 1998 and 2016 due to El Nino events.

        In order for AGW to have any meaning, you have to believe that CO2 drives temperature. Again, real world observations show this not to be the case. This is a 1999 paper with Phil Jones as co-author: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999RG900002
        Jones says:

        “We present global fields of surface temperature change over the two 20-year periods of greatest warming this century, 1925-1944 and 1978-1997. Over these periods, global temperatures rose by 0.37 and 0.32C, respectively.”

        He is saying that the greatest increase in the 20th century was 1925-44, before the large increase in CO2 emissions from the war and afterwards. CO2 rose by 5.4ppm during that period, 1.8%. In the 34 years from 1944 to 1978, temperatures were static, for a rise in CO2 of 25.7 ppm.

        There has been no warming in the UK temperature record for the last 30 years, the 30 years prior to that showed a falling temperature trend, at the same time that CO2 has continued to increase. CO2 does not therefore drive global temperature, neither does population increase.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      June 15, 2019 9:21 pm

      So how does the level of atmospheric CO2 arrive at being the lowest in all our geological records other than when the earth was deep in ice age?

  2. immune to propaganda permalink
    June 14, 2019 6:54 pm

    You know the problem here Paul; the eco loons will say we have to take more drastic action!

  3. jack broughton permalink
    June 14, 2019 7:26 pm

    A great publication as always. I noted that both primary energy and electricity are growing at their fastest since 2101 almost everywhere except in the UK: energy growth is needed for HDI improvement and industrial growth (needed for HDI growth and to pay the overdraft). The UK usage is declining and that is before we scrap I/C engines and go 100% green: tells us a lot about where we are heading I’m afraid.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      June 14, 2019 8:18 pm

      I noted several EU countries were showing sharp declines in their electricity generation, which implies forced dependency on their neighbours and economic decline.

      ……….ΔTWh …….Δ%
      Lithuania -0.67 –15.9%
      Belgium -11.87 –13.7%
      Latvia -0.86 –11.4%
      Estonia -0.71 –5.4%
      Austria -2.64 –3.7%
      Slovakia -0.95 –3.5%
      Hungary -0.89 –2.7%
      Greece -1.11 –2.0%
      Italy -5.22 –1.8%
      Denmark -0.55 –1.8%
      Norway -2.41 –1.6%
      United Kingdom -4.73 –1.4%
      Germany -4.95 –0.8%
      Sweden -0.70 –0.4%
      Spain -0.61 –0.2%
      Poland -0.32 –0.2%
      Slovenia -0.02 –0.1%

      • mikewaite permalink
        June 15, 2019 8:25 am

        IDAU :- I looked down your list several times, but no it is not there . The glaring absence : France. The only country with the dream team (for the moment) of ca 75%nuclear and ca 20% hydro . Is this significant?

      • PeterGB permalink
        June 15, 2019 12:03 pm

        It is difficult to make objective conclusions from the changes in power generation alone. The EU has pursued “power efficiency” with little regard to cost e.g. led lighting, derated consumer electricals and green subsidies..

        Another factor is population decline in some states. The following EU countries are listed in the world atlas top twenty global decliners: Bulgaria, Latvia, Croatia, Lithuania, Romania, Spain, Hungary, Portugal, and Greece. In some such as Latvia it is becoming more and more difficult to function as a state because of the population decline with GDP/revenue decreasing rapidly. Greece has a different set of EU derived problems.

        Of course, of much greater interest are large countries showing increases in population, especially the UK, France and Germany. As Mikewaite so rightly points out France seems to be doing fine (currently) and if they manage to ditch Macron their economy could struggle on. UK and Germany seem already to be on the slippery slope back to the middle ages. When French nuclear begins its awaited shutdown they might not be so keen to export their remaining power.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 15, 2019 5:58 pm

        Mike Waite:

        France increased its output, doubtless to help supply some of the decline elsewhere including in the UK. It generated an extra 20TWh. Other increases included Switzerland (6.5TWh), Finland (2.5TWh) and Croatia (1.8TWh).

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 15, 2019 6:02 pm

        PeterGB

        Derating consumer electricals doesn’t necessarily achieve real energy saving. It takes the same energy to boil a kettle, even if it does it at half speed. You may end up spending twice as long with the vacuum cleaner trying to get up the bits it has inadequate suction to deal with. Most of it is greenstanding.

      • PeterGB permalink
        June 15, 2019 7:59 pm

        Yes, I am aware, but ironically ” It takes the same energy to boil a kettle” is not strictly correct. As the EU scientist was on leave when this was cooked up, the politicians failed to realise that more energy will be required by a lower wattage kettle as total heat loss is proportional both to temperature difference and time.

        If we do not get out of the EU as promised I predict toasters which will have to be loaded with bread and turned on the night before to be ready for next day’s breakfast!

      • June 15, 2019 7:36 pm

        @It doesn’t add up, on head nail hit is. I was hoping for an analysis of how much of the UK decline is due to greenity, and how much due to importing energy i.e. exporting emissions to other countries.

      • Joe Public permalink
        June 15, 2019 10:42 pm

        IDAU:

        “Derating consumer electricals doesn’t necessarily achieve real energy saving. It takes the same energy to boil a kettle, even if it does it at half speed.”

        Actually it takes more energy.

        All the time the kettle’s heating up, it’s losing heat.

        The longer it takes, the more heat (i.e. energy) is lost. 😉

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        June 16, 2019 11:57 am

        Kettles

        The real point is that halving their individual power consumption does nothing for reducing peak grid demand, since doubling the boiling time means that twice as many are operating, given only a modest randomisation of switch on times. Of course the alleged reason for cutting maximum permitted power was to reduce maximum grid demand, and it’s nonsense.

        The heat loss issue is not quite so clear cut, because it depends on the properties and shape of the materials from which the kettle is made. The one design element that does have energy saving potential is the ability to boil only a small quantity of water. Using my 3kW, 3 pint kettle, I can boil sufficient to make a cup of something hot in under a minute.

  4. It doesn't add up... permalink
    June 14, 2019 8:08 pm

    Thanks for the heads up. Doubtless I shall now have many happy hours looking at the data revisions and analysing the trends. It’s always my most frequently referred to data download every year.

    Among other summary highlights the R/P ratio for oil is 50.0 years (down form 50.2), and for gas is 50.9, with record production lowering it from 52.6. Neither is running out by 2050.

  5. 2hmp permalink
    June 14, 2019 8:12 pm

    Excellent news. Here’s to 1500ppm so that we can feed the planet

  6. Mack permalink
    June 14, 2019 11:45 pm

    In a nutshell, if we follow current UK government energy/climate policies for the next 30 years, we’re all f***ed! Thanks for the heads up Paul.

    • Athelstan. permalink
      June 15, 2019 12:07 am

      Sooner, through the politics of the hard left societal wrecking ball, deconstruction and bedlam here we come, and sooner if they can manage – bodge it a better phrase. What with; the poisons of multculti/post modernism and managerialism, throw in the university cultural Marxist pedagogues suffusing the social science faculties and climastrology departments, fubar: we are being done.

  7. June 15, 2019 12:39 am

    The UK is going to go bankrupt chasing the green energy myth.Unfortunately Canada is in the same position with a Liberal government. We have an election coming in October and maybe the conservatives will win.They have pledged to stop carbon taxes and take a fresh look at larger emitters.This is a western world problem plus the UK. The greens are financed by forces that want to destroy our way of life.Nobody sensible, knows how to stop them.
    There is lots of articles on line that question and even prove the alarmists are wrong but nothing seems to sink into government.The green subsidies are going to bankrupt all western societies plus the UK.

    • Athelstan. permalink
      June 15, 2019 11:48 pm

      Obarmy and his hungarian helper plus his mates the investment banksters agitated to get Harper out of gubmint and their cuban love child installed and the Canadian electorate fell for it. A very similar story in Aus where Abbot was ousted and ooh look just in time for Paris – in came Malky turnbull, a GS alumnus – what a surprise eh?

      Over in benighted blighty, ‘call me dave’ camoron promised the day after the EU referendum on the 24 June 2016 that, we’d be out of the Berlin Empire if we voted for out, on the 24th dave was made to fall on his sword, boris was politically assassinated and as if by magic, lo and behold a remainiac appeared! we got treason may, and it was a ‘coup’: no one voted for her.

      OWG – it’s here, only Trump holds the fort for the proles and you can see why they hate him so much……………just think if hellary had won, it would have been game, set and bloody match for Christendom and perdition as permanent slavery.

      • dennisambler permalink
        June 17, 2019 8:31 am

        Spot on.

  8. June 15, 2019 5:41 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  9. Coeur de Lion permalink
    June 15, 2019 9:32 am

    I’ve a couple of gilet jaunes I can spare. Gimme a shout.

  10. Colin Brooks permalink
    June 15, 2019 11:37 am

    At a news conference in early 2015 in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

  11. Michael Adams permalink
    June 15, 2019 12:01 pm

    I can’t find the link to NASA finding cooling high up nor the one on Sun cycles. Can anyone give me links please.

    • June 15, 2019 4:36 pm

      Michael, I have this link for solar: http://wp.me/P7y4l-8nz

      • dave permalink
        June 16, 2019 8:08 am

        “…Solar cycles…”

        This is of some interest:

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1014296529097

        From the abstract:

        “…the temperature of the earth has been increasing almost monotonically for the past few centuries…”

        Say what!? With and without the recent, massive, use of fossil fuels?

        Of course, some of us recognize that it is a very special and odd use of the word ‘temperature’; but, when in Rome…

  12. markl permalink
    June 16, 2019 3:38 am

    Short response….. earth’s temperature, ocean rise, and atmospheric CO2 are increasing at near the same rate for the past 100 years despite increase in fossil fuel use. Getting the masses to believe otherwise is the goal of the alarmists/activists/politicians.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: