BP Energy Review 2022
By Paul Homewood
I’m amazed they’re surprised!
Renewables growth did not dent fossil fuel dominance in 2022, a report has revealed.
Renewable energy failed to shift the dominance of fossil fuels in 2022, a new report has shown, despite a massive growth in wind and solar capacity.
Global energy demand rose 1 percent last year, the Statistical Review of World Energy report revealed on Monday – and the 82 percent of total supply was provided by oil and gas generation.
This is despite a massive increases in renewable capacity, which grew by a whopping 266 gigawatts.
“Despite further strong growth in wind and solar in the power sector, overall global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions increased again,” said the president of the UK-based global industry body Energy Institute, Juliet Davenport.
“We are still heading in the opposite direction to that required by the Paris Agreement.”
The Annual Review used to be published by BP, but apparently, in their words, “The Statistical Review of World Energy has a new custodian: the Energy Institute (EI), the chartered professional membership body for people who work in energy”.
It is slightly concerning then that the Energy Institute is not quite the professional body that BP make out, but a lobby group for Net Zero:
Nevertheless, the spreadsheets still look the same, and we can ignore a lot of the fluff published in the EI report, as the chart below tells us all we really need to know:
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads
In essence nothing has changed year-on-year. Although renewable energy output has risen by 13%, its share of total energy has only gone from 4.6% to 5.3% (in contrast to EuroNews’ attempts to fool readers with claims of an increase of a whopping 266 gigawatts).
The other chart of interest is CO2 emissions, which have resumed their steady rise following signs of a standstill last year, which as I noted at the time was probably Covid related. They rose 1% from 2021 to 2022, and now stand 5% higher than in 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
So the Energy Institute is a Chartered Institute? I wonder which royal personage granted that?
It has the broad, green, outlook of the King.
It is run by Juliet Davenport, formerly of Good Energy, run jointly with husband Mark Shorrock who was a leading light for the Swansea Bay tidal scheme that was an economic disaster in the making. They would have made their money by quarrying the Lizard peninsula (a venture they also controlled) to provide the stone for the breakwaters.
Presumably BP will continue to do their own energy review each year, and be guided by it. I certainly hope so.
Is there anywhere a reliable record of temperatures in Texas (USA) going back to say the 1940/50s? Thank you.
CLIMOD is very good, though it is a bit fiddly to use
http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/
Thank you very much.
I resigned from the Energy Institute many years ago when it changed its name from the Institute of Petroleum (that was a very useful organisation). It went the way of all flesh – rotted from the top down.
I wonder if IP Week still has any value.
Noticeable that they are now trying to claim that CO2 emissions dropped during lockdown .https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Where the real facts show that it made no difference .
But this is probably part of the agenda to claim less vehicles – less CO2 .
Which is what the Marxist /socialists are aiming for as they do not want ordinary people to be able to drive , and want a 75% reduction in vehicles being owned by everybody else except themselves .
This IPCC author says emissions fell 7%, no evidence:
https://www.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/news/headlines/meeting-with-gerhard-krinner-head-of-cnrs-research-team-at-grenoble-and-one-of-the-authors-of-the-latest-ipcc-report-959594.kjsp
“For example, the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 resulted in a 7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and this wasn’t a happy time for anyone as everything came to an abrupt halt. Clearly, we will not be able to halt climate change by means of a generalized shutdown like that, which gives us an idea of the challenge we face.”
I wonder whether they would try if emissions fell by more
If only the UK would follow the world example and boost fossil fuel use. Pigs would fly before sanity returns to the UK.
Maybe the US isn’t lost yet?https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2023/06/27/video-worlds-largest-gas-station-opening-thrills-crowds-tennessee/
“Crowds descended on Sevierville, Tennessee, Monday to participate in the grand opening of the world’s largest gas station, called Buc-ee’s.
The location also features 120 gas pumps and employs more than 350 workers. (no mention of EV charging points…)”
I was a member of the Energy Institute for over 30 years. It was made made up of the Institute of Petroleum and the Institute of Energy, the latter of whom have dominated the rhetoric with green nonsense. They also thought that jacking up the fees each year was good value for money- for them. The ex boss is now the boss of BP. I quit two years ago as I did not agree with what they were promoting and there was nothing left of interest. All I got was a grotty magazine each month, that got thinner and thinner and I was treated to endless BS about renewables, hydrogen and ESG. They also want to sell their training seminars which are expensive – at 66 years of age I probably know as much as them.
I am not sure I would trust their data as the good guys have in the main gone. Either retired or got fed up like me. The best way is to view data from as many sources as possible. JODI is a little known but excellent source for checking data on petroleum products.
Sound a lot like why I quit the Institute of Engineering & Technology. Their magazine had evolved into a Guardian supplement with the best feature being a spoof column about a student with engineering parents. Having found a few copies from around 2010, it was alarming at how vacuous it had become.
The Energy Institute was formed by the merger of the Institute of Petroleum and the Institute of Energy in 2003. There have been a lot of mergers of institutes during my working life – I think I was merged 3 times – as to be honest there were a lot of small institutes that were struggling to be viable so it made sense. I think there used to be around 50 institutes able to grant CEng and IEng registration. Some of the changes are a sign of changing times so the Institute of Metals merged with others to become the Institute of Materials as engineers needed a wider knowledge base.
But it says a lot that the EI president is from Good Energy and vice presidents include Octopus Energy and some government stooge. The 3rd VP is a BP – oops sorry we say bp now – person who seems to be focused on expanding unreliable energy. A further VP and honorary secretary got a damehood in 2022 for ‘services to diversity and inclusion and sustainability in business’ – ’nuff said.
Well, I downloaded the statistical review. My heart sank when I saw who had compiled it. Accountants/ consultants and Herriot Watt. Great. No-one from industry. It just proved theory. The EI has no-one left.
It’s statistics. So why do you want an engineer to do it?
My experience of KPMG and Kearney is not very favourable. These days univesities are not much better. They are all internet experts with no skin in the game. Have any worked in the oil business – I mean gotten their hands dirty. Not many left these days. Look at the mess made by the Covid experts, not to mention the IPCC claptrap.
I used to be involved in similar work many years ago. Much of it relies on compiling government statistics and checking on definitions to adjust for compatibility. In some cases official statistics are simply not credible, and other methods of estimating a truer position are needed which entails tracking trade flows, monitoring plant capacities, etc.. When it comes to data on reserves you need the benefit of real expertise preferably with local knowledge of geology etc.
I note that there has been no new estimate of oil, gas and coal reserves since 2020. BP lost the expertise to do it, evidently.
And currently German regulators are putting the final touches to their electricity rationing regulations in preparation for more battery cars and heat pumps. They have made a concession in raising the power limit from 3.7kw to 4.2kw before measures are taken to cut your consumption. No wonder the recent IFO survey on confidence is on a downward trend.
“net zero” is the wrong direction. What is needed are _reliable_ sources of electricity generation, i.e. coal, gas and nuclear AND private transport without range problems, i.e. petrol, diesel, LNG
The stooges always progress up the slippery pole. The good thing about these failed organisations, is that they are being usurped and replaced by new independent organisations with no costs and no staff, yet they are active social and professional groups for information exchange and networking. The worm has turned. For example the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (PESGB) that was renamed has now been replaced by the Petroleum EXPLORERS society GB (PESGB), or to some the “Petroleum Exploration Social Group Beers” (PESGB). The new bodies have no costs, no staff, follow no narrative, yet have the same functions (social and professional) as the defunct bodies they replaced. RIP Energy Institute (and BP). The square wheels will be taken off the car eventually and the round ones put back on when reality bites.
Perhaps the best lesson learned from the 2022 report is related to the definition of insanity, doing the same thing time and again, expecting a different result.
The climate champion states are driving cost higher while driving manufacturing out of those states while importing the formerly domestic products. Basically it’s like squeezing a balloon. Perhaps it’s time to use a metric like efficiency of natural and capital resources to judge performance and tell politicians to stop micromanagement of people’s lives for no benefit whatsoever.
“Renewable energy failed to shift the dominance of fossil fuels in 2022, a new report has shown, despite a massive growth in wind and solar capacity.”
That should come as no surprise because all renewables are distributed, installed and maintained by people in conventional vehicles that run on fossil fuels. That “dominance” is not likely to stop and is another reason why oil exploration, refining capacity and distribution should be encouraged, not made the subject of political derision. Even EV charging stations are using conventional transportation for their construction.
Energy and Power are in reality cheap.
Especially from Coal and Gas.
Only mentally-challenged politicians, those with hands in the till, and virtue-signalling hypocritical greens, liberals and other ne’er-do-wells make it expensive.
Cheap energy cancels poverty, makes people happy, and creates jobs and wealth.
Economies should use more cheap energy, not less, in order to cut poverty and create economic benefit.
The CO2 argument is irrelevant.
The ultimate hypocrisy is self-flagellation of the economy and the export of jobs and wealth to other countries.
Charity begins at home.
In short, the energy expended to produce wind turbines and solar panels produces atmospheric CO2 from the manufacture of products humanity does not need.
That’s a little puzzle for our green friends……
This is funny: “Global energy demand rose 1 percent last year, the Statistical Review of World Energy report revealed on Monday – and the 82 percent of total supply was provided by oil and gas generation.”
Coal?
It’s the net zero fanatics who are ‘headed in the wrong direction’. At vast cost they will achieve virtually nothing of merit.
That is an interesting dip in CO2 emissions in 2020. The official theory is that atmospheric CO2 is rising like a bicycle tyre being inflated, it should have risen in 2020, but by around half the rise in adjacent years, that should be visible in the data.
No sign of any anomaly in Mauna Loa data …
Actually it is like inflating a leaking bicycle tyre. I believe that effectively around 50% of emissions get absorbed by oceans and plants. If that figure is correct then the pandemic should have stopped atmospheric CO2 from rising. Certainly no sign of that in the data. An interesting research topic, one that might be shunned by the mainstream.
Is it just me, or does the article conflate CAPACITY with delivered energy? The reason renewables are not the answer is the intermittent nature of their generation. Cloudy day–no solar. Calm winds–no windmills. Night–again, no solar. My checking account has a capacity of millions of dollars, but I have the meager fixed income of a tired old man.
Correct. The energy is in the sunshine and wind. W/S renewables have extraction capacity, not generation capacity. Windtards speak of it as if it were the same.
A solar panel’s capacity is the same at midnight as at noon. There is no value in that.
There are some BP and other reports here at Just Stop Net Zero.
https://www.juststopnetzero.com/
There are the charts and Excel tables behind the BP report too if that is your thing (scroll towards the bottom of the page link)
I’ve downloaded the BP reports for many years. Sometimes I unearthed substantial revisions in the statistical histories. Some of these were well motivated, and others not. I guess new ownership merits a careful review as to whether history has been re-written. I’ll give it a go, but it will take a few days I expect.
As expected! Other politicians are folles again and again !
The first summary bullet point states
“#1 The carbon budget is running out. Despite the marked increase in government ambitions, CO2 emissions have increased every year since the Paris COP in 2015 (bar 2020). The longer the delay in taking decisive action to reduce emissions on a sustained basis, the greater are the likely resulting economic and social costs.”
This bland statement, hides the fact that the 1.5C & 2C targets laid out in the 2018 IPCC SR1.5 were never going to be achieved given the weakness of the Paris Agreement. From the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018 (see link) stated as main point 2 the 1.5C target required a 55% reduction in emissions this decade.. The 2C target is 25% reduction. Both targets assume as straight line reduction to zero from 2030. For the 1.5C target, zero is in 2050 and for 2C zero is in 2070. This is the same as 12 years of 2017 emissions from 1/1/20 for 1.5C target and 20 years for the 2C target. GHG emissions in 2030 are likely to be 5-10% on the 2017 figure of 53.5GtCO2e. A failure.
At least BP states the obvious fact that emissions are rising implying the gl0bal policies are a failure. But, objectively, the Outlook should be headlining this huge policy failure.
Charlotte Elton says:
‘Renewable energy failed to shift the dominance of fossil fuels in 2022, a new report has shown, despite a massive growth in wind and solar capacity.’
Then Charlotte Elton says:
‘Global energy demand rose 1 percent last year, the Statistical Review of World Energy report revealed on Monday – and the 82 percent of total supply was provided by oil and gas generation.’
One wonders if Charlotte Elton knows Charlotte Elton. How could she say ‘shift the dominance of fossil fuels’ and then say they are 82% of total supply? There is no ‘shift the dominance’ to be had, by nearly an order of magnitude.
I also think ”Global energy demand rose 1 percent’ is BS, too. We have no way to measure it. We may get some idea as to how much was used, but that is not the same.
Global energy demand ≠ global energy consumption.
The problem they have is Electricity Generation is only a part of Primary Energy use.
Renewables cannot affect the non generation section of energy use.
The problem they have is that electricity generation is where the problems are.
The problem is they keep mixing up electricity generation with industrial use (thousands of oil-based products), heating (oil, gas, coal) and transport fuels (what is still left from the oil after the other uses).
>>The problem they have is Electricity Generation is only a part of Primary Energy use.