Skip to main content

World Energy Outlook 2007 Report

The International Energy Agency released its World Energy Outlook 2007 report last week (purchase required). According to the web page:

The annual World Energy Outlook is the leading source for medium to long-term energy market projections and analysis and has achieved widespread international recognition. It is the flagship publication of the International Energy Agency.
Last Friday I attended IEA’s Executive Director’s and Chief Economist’s presentation on the Outlook here in DC. Needless to say, their assessment of global energy to 2030 kept me tuned in as each point made was intriguing and sobering.

Below are some highlights.

The report analyzed three energy scenarios for the world’s demands: a reference, an alternative policy, and a 450 stabilization case.

The reference scenario is what happens if the world continues down its current path of energy consumption without any “new energy-policy interventions.” By not changing our current trajectory, we can expect a 55% increase in energy demands and a 57% increase in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030. China and India will demand nearly half of this energy increase. Not only that, 84% of the overall increase in energy will be fueled by fossil-fuels.

These increases may not sound like much, but according to IPCC calculations, the increase in CO2 emissions is projected to raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees Celsius. As well, $22 trillion is the amount required globally to invest and develop the world’s growing energy infrastructure. If governments do not change any policies under this scenario, nuclear capacity is projected to increase from 368 GW worldwide today to only 415 GW by 2030.

The alternative policy scenario “analyzes the impact on global energy markets of a package of additional measures to address energy-security and climate-change concerns.” If the proposed policies were to transpire, energy demands are projected to increase 38% and CO2 emissions increase 27% by 2030. Under this scenario, the IPCC projects temperatures would only rise by about 3 degrees Celsius by 2030. Nuclear capacity is projected to increase to 525 GW by 2030.

A new scenario, 450 stabilization case, was developed to address what needs to happen in order to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (2005 CO2 concentration levels were at 379 ppm). At 450 ppm, temperatures are projected to increase by less than 3 degrees Celsius. In order to achieve this level, the report projects:

energy-related CO2 emissions would need to peak in 2012 at around 30 Gt and then decline to 23 Gt in 2030 – 19 Gt less than in the Reference Scenario and 11 Gt less than in the Alternative Policy Scenario.
How would this be achieved?
Emissions savings come from improved efficiency in fossil-fuel use in industry, buildings and transport; switching to nuclear power and renewables; and the widespread deployment of CO2 capture and storage in power generation and industry.
Nuclear capacity under this projection would more than double from its current capacity to 833 GW by 2030. Even if this increase were to happen, nuclear would account for only 16% of the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions worldwide. This should speak to the monstrous challenge the world faces in curbing CO2 emissions. Improved fossil-fuel efficiency would account for 27% of the reductions; end-use energy efficiency would provide 13%; biofuels for transportation, 4%; renewables for power, 19%; and CO2 capture and storage, 21%.

India and China

The report spent much of its writing on the energy demands India and China will require in the coming years. The IEA projects that by 2010, China will pass the U.S. "to become the world's largest energy consumer."

The next 10 years are critical for these two countries due to the fact they are ramping up their energy infrastructure to meet their economic demands. Once their power plants are built, the two countries will have little incentive to retire them any time soon. Therefore, it is important to influence them to build emission-free sources of energy like nuclear.

Comments

Joffan said…
David, did you see any change from the previous reports on forecasts of nuclear power use? I've noticed that the EIA forecasts for future nuclear have been revised upwards in the previous few issues of their yearly outlook - is this also true of the IEA?

I'm slowly and reluctantly coming the conclusion that sequestration is a technology whose development must be aggresively accelerated, to make any dent in the continuing rise of atmospheric CO2.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…