From the Javier Blas’ Elements newsletter: A world still thirsty for oil
For years, energy experts modeling the impact of 2050 net zero targets on oil demand had the advantage that the deadline, and the incremental steps to getting there, were a long way off. If time proved their scenarios wrong, they’d be long forgotten anyway.
But now, those first intermediate waymarks are around the corner, and they look increasingly farfetched.
Earlier this week, BP Plc published its annual Energy Outlook, presenting three scenarios — not forecasts — for how oil demand may evolve. The Net Zero path, broadly in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, is difficult to reconcile with current trends.
In such a narrative, BP’s model shows global oil consumption collapsing to 21 million barrels a day by midcentury, down from about 98 million today.
Ignore 2050 and focus instead on the intervening milestones, starting with 2025. In just two years’ time, BP’s Net Zero scenario sees oil demand 4 million barrels a day lower than it is now. That would mean removing the equivalent of Germany’s entire consumption in 2024 and repeating that feat again the following year.
Every oil forecast I’ve seen shows demand rising in 2023, and the few 2024 projections already published — including one from the US government — see growth continuing.
Looking further ahead, BP’s Net Zero readout suggests demand would need to plunge a further 9 million barrels a day from 2026 to 2030, falling to 85 million a day by the end of the decade. That equates to eliminating the consumption of France each year and, on the final year, striking out Italy as well.
Then the really difficult period starts. The scenario sees the world using just 70 million barrels a day in 2035, requiring the annual removal of 3 million a day. That equals the demand of Japan, currently the world’s fourth-largest consumer.
Net zero models look increasingly at odds with short-term trends. It’s possible oil demand can sink by 2050, but is it going to plummet in a matter of months and keep falling precipitously every year for the next decade? No.
You can sign up for it by email here.
Related: Australia just extended a coal mine approval to 2063.
“Net Zero” was a political decision, and violates the three laws of thermodynamics in multiple ways.
The dream: Net zero by 2050.
The reality: Not zero, not ever.
One barrel of oil converts to 1.7 MWh of electricity (BOE is barrel of oil equivalent).
Bruce Power in Ontario capacity is 5403 MWh. This is the largest nuclear power plant in the world. 30% of Ontario’s electricity.
Bruce Power equals 3178 BOE per hour. Demand is not uniform during a day so it is not used at constant capacity. Today let’s assume that this energy can be stored efficiently (fairy dust and unicorns).
So Bruce Power is equivalent to 76,000 BOE per day. To drop 4 million BOE per day by 2025 means 52 new Bruce Power’s need to be brought on line within 2 years. To drop a further 73 million BOE by 2050 means an additional 960 new Bruce Power’s by 2050. After the immediate hurdle of 52 new plants, it is 38 per year every year for the next 25 years.
Bruce Power had a useful life of about 25 years before needing to be rebuilt so let’s just call it building 40 new Bruce Power’s each and every year into perpetuity to collapse oil from 98 million BOE/day to 21 million BOE/day over 52 years . Next do coal.
Nothing like dropping a huge serving of reality into the equation.
Another one
“Backflip: BP “disappointed” in renewables — flags a shift back to oil and gas and “making profits” ”
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/backflip-bp-disappointed-in-renewables-shifts-back-to-oil-and-gas-and-making-profits/
Nice analysis. I heard yesterday that wind capacity had reached 1.8 GW in 2022 but the government estimates 5 GW is needed every year to reach our Net Zero goals of 2030. Forget the difference between capacity and output. We aren’t even in the ball-park yet.
After you do oil. Do coal. Then do NG.
Can nuclear really replace oil, coal and NG?
maybe someone knows the answer but considering that only about 40% of petroleum consumption actually goes towards transport, i.e. fuel and the rest goes towards petroleum products like plastics, lubricants, etc – do these BP estimate just talk about the transport part?
If so, then simply banning cars will go a long ways towards achieving that and every commie politician out there is planning to do just so.
If it isn’t just for transport, but all petroleum use -then only WWIII will dramatically reduce consumption by the levels we are talking about. Think about it, you might be able to live your entire life by just walking everywhere – maybe, assuming all services and goods come to you.
How about living your life without petroleum products?? Most people don’t understand, all modern life, all of it, needs petroleum. Want to live life without, then go back to 1800 or so…
Reducing demand at this pace is easy if you go to the root of the problem and drastically reduce the number of skin wrapped carbon meatbags who use the energy, and they seem to have multiple plans to attack the problem this way – birthrates, vax culls, bio weapon plagues, global war. I’m sure their 3 scenarios look a lot different than BP’s.
In reality oil will become priced beyond affordability some time in the 22nd century. It will be replaced by coal and nuclear. Nowhere do I see solar or wind in the equation because it simply doesn’t work. People are not going to go back to living in caves. When they start freezing, the coal mines will reopen.
Its all about control and ration – not zero emissions.
I have previously posted info and links (to DumbBiker) on how hederrra tech will be used to track every individuals carbon consumption. Tech is now ready on Hederra’s side, or close to it – as they ramp up the transactions per second the network is capable of (which grows with the network)
We already have carbon taxes – why do we need to track them down to the smallest item?
Everything has a carbon footprint. Broad carbon taxes will not give governments the power over humanity that they need to build back better.
IF the goal is to ration carbon – you are going to need to accurately account for its usage – or my guess is it would be fought in court to prove the amount of carbon any individual or group has consumed to be accurate. Now they will be able to .
Decarbonization will not be voluntary, but this will allow it to be controlled and as such rationed and more directly taxed. And penalized.
Look for governments to legislate this into law, fully supported by corporations.
“Verifiable, auditable” “actionable insights” “carbon tokens” “solution for governments”
Doesn’t it all sound wonderful, especially with the perky female announcer.
Terrible that such a good technology, that can be used to verify accuracy (elections, stock market to name a couple – and micropayments) will be used to subjugate humanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ntVae8lTQs0
Without the equivalent replacement from Green Energy (fairy dust and unicorns) the level of coerced energy poverty would certainly ignite extreme civil unrest around the world, necessitating massive policing, requiring WWIII levels of energy production and consumption. Oil demand will go up either way.
Five years ago, at a BP Board Meeting, some young buck explained to the aging dinosaurs how stupid they were to fight the global warming dogma. Stop fighting Big Brother and join the consensus, she said. And just keep producing oil because nobody can read a graph anyway. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Electing liberal Fairy Dusters, all with liberal arts degrees, and permitting them to “mandate” things that they cannot possibly understand because (among other things) they cannot perform basic math has always been the hell-bound lemming-train to disaster. There will be no Net Zero; but there will be blackouts, shortages, and massive uncivil unrest.
You need to realize that net zero is not actual zero. In the fantasy would that global warmunists live, offsets achieve the same result as actual cuts to consumption. Thus (in their minds) if we can’t reduce consumption the required amount, we need only pay lots of money to the right people and our emissions magically lose the ability to warm the planet.
So yes, NET zero is achievable, if you have enough money.